|
Anonymous
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1252071 - 01/27/03 04:12 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
1. The moths you speak of were not used properly as a condiment for the Age. This ruined the entire recipe.
2. My reply is:
a. Orange bits & Crisps
|
Jackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 7 months, 23 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: ]
#1252185 - 01/27/03 04:59 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
For your enjoyment
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1252199 - 01/27/03 05:03 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I love you Jackal!
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1252244 - 01/27/03 05:23 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Sorry Jackal, but the Pepper Moth story does not show any evolution (genetic change) whatsoever, but the deselection for certain color genes via being eaten.
Yes, there is a population shift / preference for a certain wing color, but absolutely NOTHING is happening to the genetic code on the DNA level.
That is like saying that I have a litter of pure-bred black lab puppies with one white one. If I destroy the white puppy, have labradors ACTUALLY evolved?
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Jackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 7 months, 23 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
#1252258 - 01/27/03 05:34 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Are you trying to say that changing colour to avoid being eaten is not an evolutionary step? Edit: ? Inserted
--------------------
Edited by Jackal (01/27/03 06:09 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1252275 - 01/27/03 05:49 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I am intuiting that you are asking me a question.
This is where you are not understanding. Black moths do NOT morph into white ones nor white ones into black ones. There were always both colors present, just the proportion changed.
Whites in America are more numerous than blacks. If the increasing skin cancer rates in Caucasions decreases the white population, and thus making them a minority, has the human race evolved based on this single statistic?
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Jackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 7 months, 23 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
#1252329 - 01/27/03 06:11 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I understand perfectly. In my and I think every Darwinists view, changing your phenotype in order to increase the likelihood of survival and producing offspring is an example of evolution.
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1252346 - 01/27/03 06:18 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
But if the tree bark were red instead of light/dark grey, that does not mean that the moths would turn red as the genetic code is not adapting on the cellular level.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Jackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 7 months, 23 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
#1252356 - 01/27/03 06:21 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Not in as short space of time - No. But in the case of the moth the desirable colour was already present as you pointed out. This causes the "evolutionary change" to appear so quickly. If the desirable colour wasn't immediately present in the phenotype then it would take centuries for the moth to adapt, thats if extinction didn't get it first!
--------------------
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1252494 - 01/27/03 07:13 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Swami & Jackal (and everyone else, why not?):
The word evolution is a bit of a misnomer. I hope everyone realizes and understands this.
HOWEVER, the term itself has (through years of improper use) become identified with natural selection. NOTHING evolves. Certain genes just happen to work (ah, pragmatism) better than others at certain times/climates/whatever. Those that work better tend to NOT "die off"... while those that don't work as well DO tend to "die off". It's as simple as that. The genes themselves DO NOT change. The only thing that changes is the proportion of gene X to gene Z (just an example) in a population OVER TIME. Mutation is not the driving force in "evolution", so get it outta yer head!
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Jackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 7 months, 23 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Sclorch]
#1252514 - 01/27/03 07:20 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I disagree, Evolution is a process in which something (not necessarily an organism) gradually changes into a different and more suitable form for its environment. If this is brought about by genes being turned on or off as required then so be it. The "thing" has evolved.
--------------------
Edited by Jackal (01/27/03 07:21 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Sclorch]
#1252518 - 01/27/03 07:22 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So over time, our fish & salamander & frog & rodent & ape genes die off leaving only human genes. And here we are!
As more believer genes die out, the schlorch model of humanity will take over.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1252520 - 01/27/03 07:22 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well then... you are wrong. Good luck with that.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Jackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 7 months, 23 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Sclorch]
#1252535 - 01/27/03 07:27 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I don't think I am, can we agree to disagree?
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
#1252609 - 01/27/03 07:55 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
As more believer genes die out, the schlorch model of humanity will take over.
That's a terrifying idea.
Great to see everyone playing nice. When I saw a 10 post jump on this thread I nearly had a panic attack!
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1252814 - 01/27/03 08:52 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Jackal: I don't think I am, can we agree to disagree?
We can do that when you educate yourself on evolution. I know from your word usage and lack of terminology that you haven't taken (and passed) a university-level class on evolution. Sometimes academia has alot to offer (*sensing a possible academia knock*).
Swami: So over time, our fish & salamander & frog & rodent & ape genes die off leaving only human genes. And here we are!
I hope no one takes that seriously... I know you don't. The many different kinds of mutations are responsible for the initial genetic diversity... the fit survive (no, that is not a tautology... don't make me have to say why).
As more believer genes die out, the schlorch model of humanity will take over. That "h" just never seems to be absent... hehe Being a "believer" is okay if it's based on the Kierkegaardian concept of faith... as long as there is no dogma in there.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Jackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,576
Last seen: 7 months, 23 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Sclorch]
#1252863 - 01/27/03 09:10 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I studied Evolution and Ecology as an Undergrad actually, as part of my Botany degree in which I achieved a 2.1 And anyway, I haven't seen anything in your use of terminology which makes you Richard Dawkins!
OK according to my Oxford Science Dictionary, Evolution is defined thus:
Evolution Changes in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. The gradual development of more complex organisms from simpler ones.
Funny that, thats what I thought it meant!
--------------------
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Jackal]
#1253114 - 01/27/03 10:23 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Jackal: OK according to my Oxford Science Dictionary, Evolution is defined thus: Evolution- Changes in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. The gradual development of more complex organisms from simpler ones. Funny that, thats what I thought it meant! Well, Jackal would disagree with you: disagree, Evolution is a process in which something (not necessarily an organism) gradually changes into a different and more suitable form for its environment. If this is brought about by genes being turned on or off as required then so be it. The "thing" has evolved." and changing your phenotype in order to increase the likelihood of survival and producing offspring is an example of evolution. Evolution isn't active... it is passive. Are you trying to say that changing colour to avoid being eaten is not an evolutionary step? Again... your words indicate that evolution is an active process. I studied Evolution and Ecology as an Undergrad actually, as part of my Botany degree in which I achieved a 2.1 Well that's good, but education means nothing without coherence in application...
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
Edited by Sclorch (01/27/03 10:25 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Sclorch]
#1253169 - 01/27/03 10:34 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
As more believer genes die out, the schlorch model of humanity will take over.
That "h" just never seems to be absent... hehe
That is because the "h" gene has not yet left the building, er pool.
Evolution isn't active... it is passive.
Damn, lazy ass evolution! Why don't you make something of your life?
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: Evolution [Re: Swami]
#1254103 - 01/27/03 04:03 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Huh?
-------------------- What if everything around you Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be?
|
|